Recent Cases Handled by Strong & Hanni
Strong & Hanni has long been recognized as one of the top litigation firms in the State of Utah. Here are just a few examples of recent courtroom victories by Strong & Hanni attorneys:
1. No Cause in Low Impact Case
A "no cause" jury verdict in favor of client, the defendant in an auto-accident case filed in the First District Court. The plaintiff was rear-ended by the defendant near a traffic signal in Logan, Utah. The plaintiff alleged that she suffered severe personal injuries as a result of the accident. The defense conceded negligence, but argued that the force from the accident was insufficient to have caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Following a four day long trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding that the defendant’s negligence was not the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. For more information contact Paul M. Belnap and A.J. Sano.
2. No Cause in Auto-Pedestrian Case Involving a Child
Jury verdict in favor of client, the defendant in an automobile/pedestrian case in the First District Court. The case involved a seven year old child who ran on to a 50 m.p.h. highway and into the side of a trailer being pulled by the defendant. The child sustained a serious brain injury as a result of the impact. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had plenty of time to see and avoid the child and that other drivers were able to avoid the accident. The plaintiff also claimed that the child lacked the ability to appreciate the risk of high speed traffic. The trial was bifurcated into separate liability and damage phases. Following three days of evidence on liability, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of no negligence on the part of the defendant, thereby ending the case before a second week of evidence on damages. For more information contact Paul M. Belnap and Andrew D. Wright.
3. No Cause in Trigeminal Neuralgia claim
Favorable arbitration ruling in a matter in which the plaintiff was struck from behind by the defendant in an auto-accident. The plaintiff alleged that the accident caused him to suffer a rare condition known as trigeminal neuralgia. The defense conceded negligence, but argued that the collision did not cause the plaintiff’s trigeminal disorder. The arbitrator determined that there was insufficient evidence to show the plaintiff’s condition was caused by the subject accident and awarded only minimal damages. For more information contact Paul M. Belnap.
4. No Cause in 2002 Olympic Accident
Jury verdict of no cause of action in favor of client, Anheuser Busch, in a trial involving a claim for head, neck and back injuries that were allegedly sustained by the plaintiff when he slipped and fell on the ice during a "score on the goalie" contest that was being held on the outdoor skating rink at Bud World at the Gallavan Center during the 2002 Olympic Games. The plaintiff claimed that Anheuser Busch had served him too much beer prior to his participation in the contest, and had hired an incompetent event manager who failed to provide proper instructions and adequate safety equipment for the contest participants. The defense responded with evidence showing that the contest had been properly managed, and that the plaintiff had not been served enough alcohol to make him intoxicated. The jury returned a unanimous verdict finding the plaintiff 75% at fault, and apportioned only 10% of the fault to Anheuser Busch. Based on the jury’s verdict, the court entered a judgment of "no cause" in favor of the defendants. For more information contact Peter H. Christensen
5. Summary Judgment for General Contractor on Personal Injury Claim of Subcontractor's Employee
Granted summary judgment in a case in which Strong & Hanni represented the defendant, a general contractor, in a claim by an injured employee of a subcontractor. The plaintiff was instructed by his employer in the past to not stand under loads which were being lifted by crane. The accident occurred when the plaintiff got underneath a load of truss joists which slipped and fell on him, severing his spine. The facts showed that the general contractor did not supervise, direct or control the work being performed by the framing subcontractor, including the crane operations which resulted in the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff argued that the general contractor's overall ability to control safety on the project was sufficient to impose a duty on the general contractor. The trial court disagreed, and ruled as a matter of law that the general contractor was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. For more information contact Peter H. Barlow and Ryan P. Atkinson.
